@roystgnr,"Joe believes A, A implies B, therefore Joe believes B" is not a valid syllogism, unless you first show that Joe knows "A implies B" and that Joe is capable of basic deductive reasoning.
Good point. I guess I’ll have to concede that Joe Biden does not seem capable of basis deductive reasoning. My bad.

Even without this irony, it's an amazing rhetorical notion to push, that having someone else pay for something gives us control over our choices. Give any 18 year old the choice between buying their own contraception and having their parents buy their contraception, and see which choice they believe gives them more control over their choices. I don't see how replacing your parents with a committee of 300 million strangers helps.

What the applause was for was the unstated punchline. For those unfamiliar with Democrat-speak, here's a complete quote:

"We see a future -- we really honest to God do -- where women once again control their own choices, their destiny and their own healthcare -- And government will force someone else to pay for all of those choices."

I doubt pharmacists are going to want to shoulder the entirety of the litigation risk that comes with ensuring (and documenting) that the patient understands the risks of OCPs including the risk of life-threatening blood clots (and the increase in that specific risk that comes with tobacco use and with age over 35) ... as well as the risk of of pregnancy that comes with numerous OCP-drug interactions and OCP-food interactions ... as well as the increased risk of various malignancies.

I have no doubt that pharmacists are up to the task of delving into the patient's past medical history and personal risk factor profile and family history, but if they take on all of this time-consuming burden along with the cost of higher malpractice insurance that would come with the added responsibility, that's going to add to the cost of OCPs from the pharmacists' end ... and the visit to the pharmacist will be a less convenient process.

This idea of having pharmacists assume responsibility for the whole process of selecting and dispensing medication might be worth a try, but I doubt it would work nearly as well as hoped.

The vast majority of retail pharmacists only exist because of government law forces stores to have them. There is absolutely no need to have a super highly educated person putting pills in bottles all day when machines and less educated people could do just as good of a job. They must have a great lobby organization.

...I don't see how replacing your parents with a committee of 300 million strangers helps.

The teenager will experience great freedom under the committee of 300 million as long as their interests coincide, or at least do not conflict. When the committee of 300-million decides something against that teenager, the teenager will be powerless and would prefer the parental limitations because those could at least be argued.

So many of the "liberation" arguments fall into this trap. It's a false freedom.

Blogging software: Powered by Movable Type 4.2.1.
Pictures courtesy of the authors.
All opinions expressed on EconLog reflect those of the author or individual commenters, and do
not necessarily represent the views or positions of the Library of
Economics and Liberty (Econlib) website or its owner, Liberty Fund,
Inc.

The cuneiform inscription in the Liberty Fund logo is the
earliest-known written appearance of the word
"freedom" (amagi), or "liberty." It
is taken from a clay document written about 2300 B.C. in the Sumerian city-state of Lagash.